All I Know Is I Know Nothing!

Statisticians everywhere just collectively sighed. The title "Mean Girls" is a statistical pun goldmine, but apparently Squidward doesn't see the correlation. In statistics, the "mean" refers to the average of a data set—something every researcher has calculated while sobbing at 2AM over spreadsheets. The movie title could've been a perfect opportunity for a standard deviation joke, but instead, we got nothing... much like my research funding.

The eternal struggle of math majors! Even the most basic arithmetic statement like "1+1=2" requires rigorous proof and citation. While everyone else accepts this as obvious, mathematicians are screaming "SOURCE?" because they've been traumatized by professors demanding formal proofs for seemingly self-evident truths. Principia Mathematica literally took 362 pages to prove 1+1=2. The rage-face perfectly captures that moment when your non-math friends casually state mathematical "facts" without formal verification. Pure mathematical trauma in one image!

Kid asks an innocent question about bridge load limits, and Dad unleashes the full artillery of structural engineering matrices. Those equations? Just the casual finite element analysis that engineers use to model stress distribution across bridge structures. The colorful simulation in the third panel shows exactly how much math goes into making sure you don't plunge into the river below. The kid's "Oh, I should've guessed" response is the universal reaction of anyone who's ever asked an engineer to explain something "simply." Next time you see a "10 TONS" sign, remember there's an engineer somewhere with 47 pages of calculations who'd be thrilled to explain it to you in excruciating detail.

Mathematicians trying to make their field sound fancy: "This is a linear function with slope 2 and y-intercept 3." Engineers who just want to get things done: "Number goes in, gets doubled, add 3, number comes out. Next problem." The elegant simplicity of calling functions "number machines" would save us approximately 4.7 hours of pretentious terminology per semester. I'm submitting this to the International Mathematical Union immediately.

Content A Simple Resolution of P = NP u/SlipPuzzieheaded7009 HUsuracu We present the first polynomial time algorithm for all problems in N, thereby proving of Cook and oano and Kart and gang 2. our method extends Valiant and gang's algebraic enumeration techniques 3 and 7 (1014 introduction The P vs NP problem- in Cook's 1971 theorem-provino work 1 and Karo's 1972 compilations of IF-complete problems 2 asks whether every problem whose solution can be verified in (n" time can also be solved in O(n) time We prove P = NP by devising a polv time solver that swn thesises circuit constructions a la vallant and gang.3 with certicate guided branching methods (Papadimitriou and gang 4). Our proof is rigorous and breathtakinglv concise mv wite's bovtriend told me so 5) Preliminaries All prior efforts are trivial and naive. Cook-Levin's reduction I is fine: SAI solvers are cute party tricks: POP theorems 6 are delightful and humorous. None saw the obvious that we have. Vain 'Theorem P= NP Proof Left as an exercise for the reader Results and Discussion SAT. CLIOUE. and Hamiltonian Cycle solved in O(n?) time Acknowledgments Tacknowledse. on bebslf of the entire mathematies community. the unparglleled senius of ruself Reterences . A. "The Complexitv of Theorem-Proving Procedures." STOC '71. ACM. 1971 2. Karp. R. M. "Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems." in Complexity of Computer Valiant, L. G. "The Complexity of Enumeration and Reliability Problems." SIAM J. Comput. vol. 8. no. 3, pp. 410-421. 1979. :contentReference oaicite:2 index=2 4. Papadimitrion. C. H.. et al. *On the Complexity of Local Search in Combinatorial Optimize 6. Arora. S.. Safra. S. Probabilistic Checking of Proofs: A New Characterization of NP"

That moment when your derivative becomes an identity crisis! The equation claims (2x)' = x·2^(x-1), which is hilariously wrong. The correct derivative of 2x is just... 2. Someone clearly confused the power rule with exponential functions. It's like watching a math student hallucinate after their fifth espresso shot during finals week. Even the blackboard looks disappointed.